JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the orders dated 08.07.2022 and 07.12.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-X, Giridih in Original Suit No.95 of 2019 whereby the petitioner has been debarred to file the written statement and recall of the order dated 08.07.2022 respectively has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Original Suit No.95 of 2019 instituted in the concerned Court for declaration of possession of title and recovery of possession against petitioners/defendants. The petitioners/defendants have appeared before the Court and started participating in the proceeding and by order dated 08.07.2022 they have been debarred to file the written statement and on 26.11.2024 the petition to recall the order dated 08.07.2022 has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Court by order dated 07.12.2024. He submits that the right of the petitioner has been taken away and in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that the suit has already proceeded and the plaintiff/witnesses have already been examined which has been cross-examined by the petitioners/defendants and the case has reached at the stage of argument and at that stage the said petition has been filed to recall the order dated 08.07.2022 and appreciating all these facts the learned Court has passed the order. He further submits that the plaintiff has already disclosed his all evidence and at this stage the prayer for filing of the written statement is impermissible and that will prejudice the case of the opposite party/plaintiff. 5. It is an admitted position that the written statement was not filed in spite of appearance by the petitioners/defendants and they have been debarred to file written statement by order dated 08.07.2022 and the matter has been fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 11.11.2022 and total of four plaintiff witnesses were examined and defendants have also cross-examined all the witnesses on several dates. At the time of final argument of the suit, the petition of recall has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Court appreciating all these facts and no reason has been disclosed in the petition to recall the order. Further the defence of the plaintiff has already been disclosed by way of leading the evidence and the witnesses has already been cross-examined and in view of that if the written statement allowed at this stage the case of the plaintiff will be prejudiced as the entire defence has been disclosed by the plaintiff. The valid reason has not been disclosed by the petitioners/defendants herein and if such a situation is there the learned Court has rightly passed the order. The reference may be made to the case of Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 639 wherein at paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 it has been held as under :- 20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words “shall not be later than ninety days” do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : (SCC p. 364, para 21) “21. … There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.” Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.” 21. In such a situation, onus upon the defendant is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within thirty days. When that is a requirement, could it be a ground to condone delay of more than 5 years even when it is calculated from the year 2009, only because of the reason that writ of summons was not served till 2009? 6. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 08.07.2022 and 07.12.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-X, Giridih in Original Suit No. 95 of 2019. As such this C.M.P. is dismissed.